Preview
oD]
b35 aagankiin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Aug 01 2:03 PM-14CV011427
IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CIviL DIVISION
MAXIMUM THROUGHPUT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC et. al.
Plaintiffs,
v. : Case No. 14CV-011427
MTE INSTALLATIONS, LLC : JUDGE DAVID E. CAIN
fik/a KIC, LTD et, al.
Defendants,
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM CONTRA PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SECOND
REVISED ORDER TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
Defendants MTE Installations, LLC and Ian G. Downes (“Defendants”) agree in principal
with the effort to gain the depositions of two Canadian witnesses as set forth in the plaintiff's motion.
It is true that these witnesses will likely have things to say relevant to the dispute between the parties.
But what they might have to say, and how that is characterized in the plaintiff’s motion, is
what is offensive to the defendants, and really is mostly irrelevant to the plaintiff's motion.
Phrases and language in page 4 of the plaintiff's motion are argumentative, inaccurate in light
of plaintiff Derosa’s deposition, and unnecessary to the Court’s decision on this motion. Defendants
dispute any awareness of the Court at this stage of any factual or legal issues in the case, dispute any
claim of ownership by the plaintiff in the defendant entity, dispute any agreement of profits and
distribution of same, and so on. In fact, the recitation in the final paragraph of page 4 of the motion
relative to the service contracts is pure conjecture and will, in the end if this effort at depositions is
successful, be determined.oD)
Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Aug 01 2:03 PM-14CV011427
35 - H19
The point of the memorandum contra is to emphasize that the plaintiff's motion is simply an
effort to gain depositions of foreign witnesses with specific focus on whether defendants interfered
with opportunities of the plaintiff to gain service contracts for the equipment referenced in the
motion, and not to argue disputed issues that will be before the Court. So the end effort will be the
letter to the Canadian court to allow the depositions, and in that regard defendants have issues with
some of the topics of examination is (a) — (h) of page 6 of the plaintiffs motion.
The topics of examination should be limited to the plaintiff’s paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) — the
proposed examination of these witnesses as to the discussions among the witnesses and the parties on
the service contracts for the equipment. That is the focus of the plaintiff's motion. Whether the
Canadian company was satisfied with equipment and the history of its dealings with the parties are
irrelevant to the motion, and to the proposed scope of the depositions. The relevant discourse is
accurately summarized in the email of potential witness Jim Ferguson to plaintiff DeRosa in May,
2014, page 9 of Exhibit 5 of the plaintiffs deposition, copy attached.
Plaintiff is accurate in his representation to this Court that the testimony of the Canadian
witnesses, with the exceptions noted above, is relevant to the issues in this case. The letter to the
Canadian court should reflect the accuracy and relatively natrow scope of inquiry to these witnesses,
and not the broad arguments of the plaintiff in his motion that misrepresent what these witnesses may
or may not testify to under oath.
Respectfully submitted,
Decker Vonau, LLC
By: /s/ James D. Viets
James D. Viets, Of Counsel (0022345)
Mark Decker (0007268)
620 East Broad Street, Suite 200
Columbus, Ohio 43215
2Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Aug 01 2:03 PM-14CV011427
ODI735 - H20
Telephone: (614) 744-4105
Fax: (614) 242-4243
cviets@deckervonau.com
mdecker@deckervonau.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed electronically with the Franklin
County Clerk of Courts to be served by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic
filing system this 1% day of August, 2017. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s
system.
Ls/ James D, Viets
James D. Viets (0022345). Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Aug 01 2:03 PM-14CV011427
0D735 - H21
Rich,
Thank you for your inquiry. At present Symcor has in place a service agreement to meet its requirements.
Jim Ferguson, p.eng.
Sr.Mgr, Procurement & Vendor Management, ISS & IPS, Symcor Inc,
tel 905-273-1738 cell 905-301-0388.
1 Robert Speck Parkway, Suite 400, Mississauga ON L4Z 4E7
www.symcor.co!
From: “rich"
To:
Date: 05/13/2014 01:00 PM
Subject:
Jim,
Any chance of working with you on service.
Rich
Rich de' Rosa
founder
Vice President, Sales & Marketing
MTEnviro
Cell. 330 612 5909
Office. 888 6290021
www. MTEnviro,.com
Preview
oD] b35 aagankiin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Aug 01 2:03 PM-14CV011427 IN THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIviL DIVISION MAXIMUM THROUGHPUT AND ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC et. al. Plaintiffs, v. : Case No. 14CV-011427 MTE INSTALLATIONS, LLC : JUDGE DAVID E. CAIN fik/a KIC, LTD et, al. Defendants, DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM CONTRA PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SECOND REVISED ORDER TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS Defendants MTE Installations, LLC and Ian G. Downes (“Defendants”) agree in principal with the effort to gain the depositions of two Canadian witnesses as set forth in the plaintiff's motion. It is true that these witnesses will likely have things to say relevant to the dispute between the parties. But what they might have to say, and how that is characterized in the plaintiff’s motion, is what is offensive to the defendants, and really is mostly irrelevant to the plaintiff's motion. Phrases and language in page 4 of the plaintiff's motion are argumentative, inaccurate in light of plaintiff Derosa’s deposition, and unnecessary to the Court’s decision on this motion. Defendants dispute any awareness of the Court at this stage of any factual or legal issues in the case, dispute any claim of ownership by the plaintiff in the defendant entity, dispute any agreement of profits and distribution of same, and so on. In fact, the recitation in the final paragraph of page 4 of the motion relative to the service contracts is pure conjecture and will, in the end if this effort at depositions is successful, be determined.oD) Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Aug 01 2:03 PM-14CV011427 35 - H19 The point of the memorandum contra is to emphasize that the plaintiff's motion is simply an effort to gain depositions of foreign witnesses with specific focus on whether defendants interfered with opportunities of the plaintiff to gain service contracts for the equipment referenced in the motion, and not to argue disputed issues that will be before the Court. So the end effort will be the letter to the Canadian court to allow the depositions, and in that regard defendants have issues with some of the topics of examination is (a) — (h) of page 6 of the plaintiffs motion. The topics of examination should be limited to the plaintiff’s paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) — the proposed examination of these witnesses as to the discussions among the witnesses and the parties on the service contracts for the equipment. That is the focus of the plaintiff's motion. Whether the Canadian company was satisfied with equipment and the history of its dealings with the parties are irrelevant to the motion, and to the proposed scope of the depositions. The relevant discourse is accurately summarized in the email of potential witness Jim Ferguson to plaintiff DeRosa in May, 2014, page 9 of Exhibit 5 of the plaintiffs deposition, copy attached. Plaintiff is accurate in his representation to this Court that the testimony of the Canadian witnesses, with the exceptions noted above, is relevant to the issues in this case. The letter to the Canadian court should reflect the accuracy and relatively natrow scope of inquiry to these witnesses, and not the broad arguments of the plaintiff in his motion that misrepresent what these witnesses may or may not testify to under oath. Respectfully submitted, Decker Vonau, LLC By: /s/ James D. Viets James D. Viets, Of Counsel (0022345) Mark Decker (0007268) 620 East Broad Street, Suite 200 Columbus, Ohio 43215 2Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Aug 01 2:03 PM-14CV011427 ODI735 - H20 Telephone: (614) 744-4105 Fax: (614) 242-4243 cviets@deckervonau.com mdecker@deckervonau.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed electronically with the Franklin County Clerk of Courts to be served by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system this 1% day of August, 2017. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. Ls/ James D, Viets James D. Viets (0022345). Franklin County Ohio Clerk of Courts of the Common Pleas- 2017 Aug 01 2:03 PM-14CV011427 0D735 - H21 Rich, Thank you for your inquiry. At present Symcor has in place a service agreement to meet its requirements. Jim Ferguson, p.eng. Sr.Mgr, Procurement & Vendor Management, ISS & IPS, Symcor Inc, tel 905-273-1738 cell 905-301-0388. 1 Robert Speck Parkway, Suite 400, Mississauga ON L4Z 4E7 www.symcor.co! From: “rich" To: Date: 05/13/2014 01:00 PM Subject: Jim, Any chance of working with you on service. Rich Rich de' Rosa founder Vice President, Sales & Marketing MTEnviro Cell. 330 612 5909 Office. 888 6290021 www. MTEnviro,.com